I've loved encyclopedias my whole life. As a kid it was probably 70% of my reading time - even re-reading things over and over. So today, I love Wikipedia and spend quite few hours a week surfing it. What I do a lot is use it to research things I'm watching on TV. Actor's lives, locations, events portrayed, etc.

Politics is such an infection. Why must it spoil everything, and truth is everything.

When I was reading that entry yesterday, and came across those parts, it did hit hit me as something I had no idea about, because it seem illogical, but like a fool, I accepted it anyway, and probably would have passed it on, if the subject ever came up. This pisses me off.

and a further problem is that peoples then copy each other's errors, and even slanders.and there is zip one can do about it except let well alone.freedom of speech with a vengeance. every thing you read might be true, or not.it's interesting, perhaps, to read what people might come up with - but life is too short .

Errors have repeated and proliferated through *all* media. Indeed, one could argue that the permanence of print -- i.e., the limits of our ability to edit and change is in a timely fashion, once it is out there in the world -- can lead to more recalcitrant errors.

For a soft example of this, see Stephen Jay Gould's "The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone."

I saw a stat that said there were an average of 3 errors per page on Encyclopedia Brittanica, and Wiki is at about 4 per page. Of course, that was during a Fox News Report so some here may find that source material lacking in standing.